As Judge Randa put it, and very well, “the larger danger is giving government an expanded role in uprooting all forms of perceived corruption which may result in corruption of the First Amendment itself.” Let’s hope the Seventh Circuit is as wise.

All laws are potential weapons against political opponents. Given that humans are political by nature, laws should be clear, broadly accepted, and narrowly tailored. This basic criteria would dissolve a large majority of our laws which exist just for the purpose of controlling human action that by and of itself isn't criminal or wrong.

The war between malum in se and malum prohibitum continues. Note bene that progressives hate organized religion because organized religion is what educates us, particularly in the West, about malum in se. Therefore religion stands in the way of all the mala prohibitum laws progressives seek to "fix" people and rebuild them in the progressive image and likeness.

Are we really that far from Elijah's day as he contended against the backward ideas of paganism and the priests who would kill to see their god victorious? The contention between the True God and all the false gods continues unabated in our "modern" times.

"Dark Money" is also the term du-jour in the CA State-Soviet....er....Legislature as SB-27 by Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) has passed the Assembly on a vote of 56-7 that would ban 'anonymous' donations to political campaigns.Of course, c-5's (labor orgs) are exempted.http://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB27/2013Naturally, this is just a small modification of Campaign Finance Rules passed originally in 1974 - Gee, I wonder what inspired those.

I think the John Doe Investigators accomplished their mission. They knew that ultimately they would be shut down when somebody found a judge who could read, and had read, the Constitution.

Their goal was to cost Club for Growth and similar groups money and time in the lead-up to 2014. This was largely done, although I am sure the Doe Investigators would have liked it if it went on for a few more months.

I find it ironic that the whole reason we supposedly need campaign finance regulation is to avoid the "appearance" of corruption -- not actual corruption, just the appearance of it. And yet the pro-regulators have no concern about the "appearance of corruption" when those in power use their prosecutorial discretion in ways that just happen to punish their political opponents. It's almost enough to make you question whether eliminating the appearance of corruption is the real motivating factor.

It's almost enough to make you question whether eliminating the appearance of corruption is the real motivating factor.

Of course it is not. the real motivating factor is to prevent the opposition (re conservatives/libertarians/Republicans) from excusing their rights and to prevent them from gaining any political power.

What part of this illegal harassment of free speech doesn't reek of NeoCommunism?The sword of anti-constitutionalism cuts both ways. Is this what we really want? To shut down all speech we disagree with.This is an ugly path the Left is trotting down.

Greetings from Staten Island! Grimmy is getting railroaded by the Brooklyn political machine, period. One of their own is running against him in November, and they know a guy from Brooklyn doesn't stand a chance of winning against Grimm. They couldn't make the illicit campaign financing charge stick, so they conjured up something else to smear him with... charges unrelated to his time in Congress, consisting of charges that could be leveled at an overwhelming number of small businesses across the city .

If not, and if we do capture both Houses in November, the first order of business is streamlined rules for impeach, followed by series of such removing corrupt, hyper-partisan judges from the Federal bench.

Dream on. You have more chances winning the next mega million lotto than seeing a bunch of wussies carry out their Constitutional duties. They are for themselves, they want a bigger share at the trough, not a bigger target on their backs.

@wtfci It's not that easy to resist. Read this WSJ piece from a couple months ago: "Caught in the Political Grinder/The woman who became collateral damage in the prosecutorial pursuit of Scott Walker talks about her story for the first time."

""I was in a deep, deep depression," Ms. Rindfleisch says. "I knew I wouldn't make it through [a trial], having to sit there and listen to people talk about me, and I knew that emotionally I couldn't do it. So Frank [Gimbel, her lawyer] got me the best deal he could," pleading no contest to one felony. At her plea hearing, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David Hansher would only accept the deal with a guilty plea. "The judge sentenced me to [six months in] jail and three years probation, which is completely inconsistent with what other people have been sentenced to.""

I think it is time to go in the opposite direction. Instead of "limiting" money in elections, we instead should remove all limit and require open disclosure. When you try "limit" money, it simply becomes a matter of whose money you are limiting.

I used to agree with your position. I no longer do. My new position is no limits and no disclosure. Since Proposition 8 passed, the left has consistently targeted for retribution those who fund campaigns they oppose. Several people in California lost their jobs when it was disclosed that they had supported Proposition 8. Homes were damaged. Tires were slashed. Businesses were picketed. The same thing happened the following year in WA. So, no disclosure!

If someone is taking bribes, prove that and put them in jail. Otherwise, judge politicians on their positions and actions. We don't need to know who their supporters and funders are.

Yes! There are concerns about cases like Brendan Eich, but those pale in comparison to the suppression of free speech, and investigations done undercover. Get it all out in the open, immediately, then let voters, and customers if they are so inclined, make their choices.

Krauthammer's concern isn't valid. Eich was run out of Dodge based on a contribution he made years ago. We are never going to see disclosure at some point in time outlawed. Eich would have been in no worse position and most likely a much better position if the disclosure had been immediately, i.e. before the election, instead of months afterward.

Eich's contribution was disclosed in real-time, but his ideological opponents when back in time data-mining for anything they could use against him and anyone else on that list that they alone decided needed to be 'punished' for their heresy.

The left's way ahead of you there -- as the case of Brendan Eich showed, they're already fired up to punish free speech via campaign donation disclosures, at least in Blue States. That's why Charles Krauthammer said in the wake of the Mozilla CEO's forced resignation he's cooled to the idea of full public disclosure, since if the guy who founded the company isn't safe to keep his job in California, what about the people without the same hefty resume who are suddenly targeted by the progressive PC police for the people or causes they contributed to?

InstaPundit is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.